161–170 of 384 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The vast majority of roads are managed at the state and local level. The overall expenditure for roads at the federal level is a very small portion of the budget.
> managed at the state and local level Paid for with money raised from ... tax
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As others have said, you’re seemingly ignoring the existence of EU regulations which apply automatically without needing to be transposed into local law, and of the Court of Justice of the EU whose decisions are binding for local courts. Both of these were established by the treaties that were in place when Poland joined, and further reaffirmed in the Treaty of Lisbon (which was supposed to be the clarified and rewri…
Look at the promises made to Poland: 1. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL ... "To the extent that a provision of the Charter refers to national laws and practices, it shall only apply to Poland or the United Kingdom to the extent that the rights or principles that it contains are recognised in the law or practices of Poland or of the United Kingdom." " 1. The Charter does not extend the abi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Generally Government is dramatically more efficient than a comparable private business—the difference is that Government failings tend to be publicly available information, while a corporation can blow thirty million dollars on ineffective marketing and unnecessary consultants and you'll never know.
That's a bizarre take. What incentivises governent workers to be efficient? What incentives workers & owners of a private business to be efficient? Government isn't at risk of going out of business, and within a government department, doing a particular thing more efficiently can result in lower budget and reduced headcount. You might be talking about certain large enterprises that have become bloated and top-heavy w…
Beyond a certain scale, massive inefficiency is the natural state of most corporations. It's just hard to find because the dirty laundry is rarely made public, and even then it's often concealed behind consultant fees, marketing budgets and other opaque expenditures.
With Hollywood Accounting[1], you make taxable profits transform into untaxable expenses that you pay to yourself for services you rendered to yourself, and Ireland has been a common destination for this sort of money to flow. Hollywood accounting can take several forms. In one form, a subsidiary is formed to perform a given activity and the parent entity will extract money out of the film's revenue in the form of ch…
Eg they could tax land value. It's very hard to move land out of the country or hide it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax
Or they could tax sales / consumption instead of trying to tax company profits.
Company profits are just a bit too nebulous to tax properly.
Eg you can reduce your profits just fine by shifting your capital structure from being financed by equity to being financed largely by debt. (And as we all know, too much leverage is not all that great for the resilience of the economy.) That doesn't even need any Hollywood accounting, it's very orthodox accounting.
Yet, we keep pushing companies in that direction with the incentives that most tax systems around the world set.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet they tax individuals on our revenues and not our profits …
As others mention, if you’re a 1099 contractor (even part time), you have more options to mitigate this (tradeoff being you pay the employer’s portion of social security contribution, and must manage your own finances to withhold enough to pay the next tax bill). But you’re not wrong to be upset about this. It really doesn’t seem fair. And I’m not sure the government could get away with it so easily if they weren’t a…
Eg. someone making $100k is better off than someone else making $100001, but also maybe $120k (depending on the tax rates). Basically, at $100k, there is no incentive to earn more because your net, take-home figure will be lower if you do, until you jump significantly over the hoop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Houston, Texas is often described as the most diverse city in the US, for example https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-houston-diversity-2017-... .
Haha, yeah, and Fremont is the “Happiest City to Live In”. People aren’t moving all across the world to be happy in Fremont weirdly.
So why not?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As others have said, you’re seemingly ignoring the existence of EU regulations which apply automatically without needing to be transposed into local law, and of the Court of Justice of the EU whose decisions are binding for local courts. Both of these were established by the treaties that were in place when Poland joined, and further reaffirmed in the Treaty of Lisbon (which was supposed to be the clarified and rewri…
Look at the promises made to Poland: 1. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL ... "To the extent that a provision of the Charter refers to national laws and practices, it shall only apply to Poland or the United Kingdom to the extent that the rights or principles that it contains are recognised in the law or practices of Poland or of the United Kingdom." " 1. The Charter does not extend the abi…
The Union recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000, as adapted at Strasbourg, on 12 December 2007, which shall have the same legal value as the Treaties.
The provisions of the Charter shall not extend in any way the competences of the Union as defined in the Treaties.
So the Charter is about human rights, and as the treaty makes clear, doesn’t extend the competences of the Union. Poland and UK wanted to put a further point on this for some reason. It is not a carve-out from the treaty.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As others mention, if you’re a 1099 contractor (even part time), you have more options to mitigate this (tradeoff being you pay the employer’s portion of social security contribution, and must manage your own finances to withhold enough to pay the next tax bill). But you’re not wrong to be upset about this. It really doesn’t seem fair. And I’m not sure the government could get away with it so easily if they weren’t a…
The one reason to have continually growing "tax function" is to avoid a particular number be more beneficial than a larger number. Eg. someone making $100k is better off than someone else making $100001, but also maybe $120k (depending on the tax rates). Basically, at $100k, there is no incentive to earn more because your net, take-home figure will be lower if you do, until you jump significantly over the hoop.
The proposal to start taxing only amounts above $100k is not fundamentally different from the standard deduction or personal allowance that already exists (YMMV by jurisdiction). My proposal is simply to increase this floor by 10-20x.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re right, Poland is probably in worse position than Texas here. Texas at least has the promise of a federal system to reign in its more unpopular legislative instincts, Poland not so much.
Well, the EU is a bunch of unelected bureaucrats. Of course national law made by a democratically elected government should trump some unelected and possibly very corrupt bureaucrats far away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Generally Government is dramatically more efficient than a comparable private business—the difference is that Government failings tend to be publicly available information, while a corporation can blow thirty million dollars on ineffective marketing and unnecessary consultants and you'll never know.
Corporations are way more efficient than governments in most areas. We know this since there are simply not a single government in the world that has implemented efficient versions of many of the things that private corporations easily do efficiently. The services government do is pretty much the same everywhere, roads, school, healthcare, police, military etc. But you don't see them run food distribution, grocery st…